"Jesus of Nazareth": What's in a Name?

“Jesus of Nazareth”: What’s in a Name?

A Liberationist/Cultural Perspective

I. Jesus of Nazareth

In this essay, I will apply my Liberationist perspective to the name “Jesus of Nazareth.” I’m often asked, “What is Liberation Theology?” Over the past five years, I have studied Liberation theology as a relatively new strand of theology that has evolved over the past 50 years – but what is it? Liberation theology came about when a Peruvian Catholic priest, Gustavo Gutierrez, was confronted with the reality that his European education did nothing to prepare him for the realities of extreme poverty and oppression that his parishioners were experiencing. The question Liberation theology seeks to answer is, “How should Christians behave in a world of destitution?” Liberation theology was born when faith confronted the injustices done to the poor. Within Liberation Theology, the oppressed come together and start to understand their situation through the process of conscientization, discover the causes of their oppression, organize themselves into movements, and act within an existing system to gain better wages, working conditions, health care, education, housing, etc. Liberation theology seeks to work toward the transformation of society for the betterment of all, especially the poor.

Liberation theology also seeks to ask different questions from Scripture. We ask questions about poverty, education, work, language, culture, marginalization, and other areas having to do with poverty and oppression. I often remind people that the questions we ask of Scripture are important and that not everyone is asking the same questions. As a Liberationist, I tend to focus my questions and concerns on the poor and the topic of culture. This essay will seek to use my liberationist perspective to answer the question: “What can we learn culturally from the name ‘Jesus of Nazareth’?” You then might wonder how my viewpoint could possibly differ from anything that already has been written? Well, let’s take a look.

So, what exactly can we learn from the name “Jesus of Nazareth”? During the time of Jesus, Hebrew names were important. Names signified someone’s identity. How did Jesus get his name? We are told in Matthew 1:21 that an angel told Joseph that the child should be called “Jesus” because He would save His people from their sins. Thus, Jesus was descriptive of His identity, His salvific nature. The name Jesus is derived from the Hebrew name Yeshua, meaning “Yahweh shall save, or Salvation.” The Greeks translated Yeshua to Iesous, which translates to Jesus in English. What is important to note is that in keeping with the traditions of Judaism, Jesus’ identity is to be “Yahweh shall save.”

However, there is a problem with the name “Jesus of Nazareth.” The name implies Jesus was born in Nazareth. Why is this a problem? Did Jesus not live in Nazareth? Yes, but Jesus actually was born in Bethlehem. His family then fled to Egypt and later returned to Galilee and lived in Nazareth, where Jesus was raised and where He began His ministry. A more accurate name would have been “Jesus of Bethlehem.” One of the reasons for this confusion with the name “Jesus of Nazareth” can be traced to Micah 5:2, which said the coming Messiah will be from the City of David: Bethlehem. It is important to note that the Jewish people to this day are still awaiting the Messiah, whose arrival someday is at the core of everyday Judaism -- that one day, the Messiah will come and restore His Kingdom. Today, the Jewish people still await the coming of the Messiah. Central to the concept of His coming is that He will, in fact, be a King from the lineage of David -- from Bethlehem -- and have a restorative nature about Him. I will tie together the restoration and the name Jesus later in the essay.

A predominant problem with the City of Nazareth in Galilee is the fact that it was a multicultural town, a crossroads of trade, making it a cosmopolitan place that caused problems with the Orthodox Jews of Jerusalem. This mixture of cultures, especially Greek culture, which in and of itself was a combination of many cultures, often caused Jews living outside of Jerusalem (Diaspora) to compromise their faith in favor of the dominant Greek culture. Hellenization is used to describe how Jews were heavily influenced by Greek culture. Hellenization was a problem because Jews’ adoption of Greek culture and customs often came at the expense of their traditions – including faith. Hellenized Jews adapted to Greek culture by compromising their religious beliefs, which caused Orthodox Jews, especially those in leadership positions in Jerusalem, to consider Hellenized Jews unclean. Hellenized Jews would go as far as not circumcising their children so that they would blend into Greek society. After the Maccabean Revolt, Orthodox Jews went around circumcising Hellenized Jews to make them acceptable to God. Nazareth, being a multicultural area, would have had Hellenization issues among the Jews living there. Hellenization seemed to be more prevalent the further one lived from the Temple in Jerusalem, which was the only acceptable place of worship, so people had to make long pilgrimages to Jerusalem to worship and offer sacrifices. Not everyone was able to make this pilgrimage, so over time, people lost contact with Jerusalem -- and their spiritual connection -- and slowly compromised their traditions in favor of Greek culture. As a side note, it is important to point out that our Church is building Temples all over the world, so that believers have that special spiritual connection, allowing them to reinforce their faith and renew their spirits without having to travel vast distances. Hellenization taught the religious world a valuable lesson, one that our Church seems to have taken to heart.

Another problem was that Jews from Galilee spoke with a distinct accent. During Jesus’ trial, Peter was identified quickly as a Galilean by his accent. It appears that this accent was unique because the general public tended to recognize it easily. Also, Philip told his friend Nathaniel that he had found the Messiah. Nathaniel replied, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Nazareth just seemed to be a place that many considered insignificant. The anecdotes above on Peter and Philip indicated the negative connotations tied to Nazareth in the New Testament. In fact, no mention of Nazareth is ever made in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, (by Josephus, a Jewish historian), or the Talmud. Thus, it is easy to understand why Jewish leaders questioned Jesus’ Messiahship when His name associated him with Nazareth.

What does “Jesus of Nazareth” tell us about culture? Why was it important for Jesus to be recognized as being from Nazareth? Why not change it to “Jesus of Bethlehem”? First, Nazareth was a city outside the prevailing Jewish ruling class’s power structure. The concentration of power often excludes others from leadership simply because they are not from within the recognized ruling class. This can be a case of nepotism or simply greed, but it's hard for people to give up power voluntarily, even religious leaders. Jesus would not have been an acceptable leader or teacher for Orthodox Jewish leaders simply because He was associated with Nazareth, outside the acceptable ruling class.

Secondly, we see that those from Nazareth spoke with a distinctive accent, noticeable especially by Jews living in Jerusalem. Nazareth’s aforementioned multicultural environment created distinctive ways of speaking. In the U.S., we experience similar phenomena with people form the Northeast and South, such as Louisianans’ Cajun accents and Boston and New York’s distinctive New England accents. It should serve as a reminder that Hispanics in the U.S. may never speak English without an accent, but that should not disqualify them from Church leadership. Nathaniel asked the question, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” During this recent U.S. presidential election, we heard a very similar question: “Can anything good come from south of the U.S. border, in Mexico?” Today, we are still asking the same questions: Can someone different from our normative Anglo-Saxon society possibly bring anything of value? Might Jesus very well return to the U.S. from south of the border, leading to a modern-day Nathaniel asking the question about Him?

Additionally, Nazareth was a multicultural town that allowed Hellenization to prosper, a trading hub that drew people from all over the known world. This does not mean that Jesus was influenced by Hellenization, but you may notice that throughout Jesus’ ministry, He showed significant concern for those outside of Orthodox Judaism. Jesus grew up around outcasts -- these were His friends, co-workers, and family. This also shows how God can at times use someone considered by society to be of lesser stature to become a leader of His people or bring about change. Someone multicultural can, in fact, be called by God to lead. The name “Jesus of Nazareth” would have associated Him with the multicultural world in which he grew up, something Orthodox Jews would have considered unclean and unacceptable. I often think about Hispanics living in the U.S., and how they are looked down upon for being from Latin America, as if our culture is less acceptable or not as refined as the perceived-to-be superior U.S. culture. People today are simply looked down upon because of their nation of origin, and the same can be said during the time of Jesus of Nazareth. Culturally speaking, Jesus of Nazareth can teach us that our national origin, our culture, our language, our skin color, and our gender should not be barriers to serving God. As mentioned earlier, Jesus of Nazareth had a particular concern for those considered outside Orthodox Judaism because these outsiders were his family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors. Thus, God can call prophets and leaders from within those groups to lead.

Jesus had many different names associated with Him throughout the New Testament, aside from names or attributes related to the Messiah in the Old Testament. Jesus of Nazareth was a primary name associated with Jesus in the New Testament. The name also placed Jesus outside the bounds of Orthodox Judaism when it came to education. The Pharisees and Sadducees often questioned how Jesus received such knowledge. After all, the most prestigious schools of Jewish thought were located in Jerusalem, certainly not in Galilee or the City of Nazareth. This is a reminder that a degree from an Ivy League school or an individual religious denominational school should not be used as a criterion to consider someone more qualified to teach or lead God’s people. Religious leaders in Jerusalem apparently could not get past the idea that the Messiah could not possibly be from Nazareth. He did not come from an acceptable town, likely spoke with that town’s unacceptable accent, did not attend the right school, did not associate with the right people, and did not come from a so-called respectable social class. Basically, Jesus did not fit into what Orthodox Jews consider to be acceptable. What can we learn from this? That God can and will use all sorts of people to serve Him and that we need to be cautious when we impose our cultural norms on others. Of course, there is more to Jesus’s oppression, but the aforementioned would be a few reasons.

II. Jesus as restoration

I want to shift to the name Jesus and point out a few examples of how His name can be associated with the concept of restoration. What does the name teach us? In the Hebrew Bible, there are numerous names for God. In fact, the Hebrews refrained from using the name God in any form to avoid using God’s name in vain. Thus, it was commonplace for Hebrews to describe God by His attributes, which reveal to the reader a certain aspect of God’s revelatory nature to mankind. It is important to note that there are numerous names for God throughout the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament -- what about Jesus? Are there various names for Jesus? And if so, what does that teach us about Him?

Let’s consider the name Jesus and how His name might be associated with the concept of restoration. What does the name Jesus tell us about the restoration? When approaching Scripture and theology, the questions we ask of texts have a profound effect on what we learn from them. I will ask different questions about the names given to Jesus, particularly what do the names for Jesus and the concept of restoration have in common and what can they teach us?

Let's begin with the name Jesus, which stems from the Greek Iesous, which is derived from the Hebrew name, Yeshua, which means, “salvation” or “Yahweh shall save.” As noted in my previous essay, salvation and restoration should be held as equally important terms. We should look upon salvation as a restoration of one’s relationship with God, not simply as a term signifying avoidance of future punishment. This means that salvation is a return to an original state or restored state of one’s relationship with God. Thus, within this context, the name Jesus can also come to signify restoration.

The name Emmanuel, meaning “God with us,” also can be comparable to the concept of salvation and restoration. The idea of “God with us” is essential to restoration. God is the one who is initiating the restoration of His relationship with mankind; thus, “God with us” becomes an important factor signifying God’s restorative desire toward mankind. This restorative element of Emmanuel is also a return, or restoration, in which God once dwelled among Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, physically. I mentioned in my last essay that since the fall of man, mankind has been looking forward to restoration with God, and that God would elicit this restoration. The name Emmanuel, thus, becomes symbolic of restoration, a time when God walked in the Garden with mankind.

We also see the phrase “Jesus is Lord” in the Greek kyrios Iesous. The word Kyrios means “Lord.” In Greek, Kyrios denotes someone of superior status, able to command and dispose of whatever he wants. In Hebrew, Lord in this context, signifies a deity, someone of godly origins, or divine. A particularly divine attribute of Jesus was his forgiveness of sins, which symbolized restoration with God. This divine attribute allowed for a restored relationship with mankind or the individual.

As I mentioned earlier, the questions we pose to Scripture can have a profound effect on what we learn. As I considered the name Jesus in the context of restoration, it became evident that Jesus’ name has a restorative aspect to it. It teaches us that God’s primary goal of restoration and the name Jesus, “Yahweh shall save,” have a restorative nature. Culturally, we also see that Jesus came from outside the acceptable leadership of Orthodox Judaism. Jesus is restoring those placed outside the acceptable bounds of Orthodox Judaism and bringing them into the Church.

Thus, today’s Church should be reflective of this multicultural aspect of Jesus and should exemplify a multicultural nature as well. How the Church lives and expresses itself can vary, but it is necessary to realize that we should be inclusive and welcome all cultures into our churches, as well as into church leadership positions, to elicit the Church’s restorative nature. I want to mention a story in the Book of Acts, in which a church was showing favoritism in how it handled the needs of Jewish widows, compared with those of Greek widows. The Greek widows felt neglected, and the problem was brought to the attention of the Apostles, who responded by selecting leaders from within the church, men of good character, to solve the problem. What often goes unnoticed is the fact that all the men chosen were Greek. The problem of Greek widows being marginalized was solved by selecting all Greek men to find a solution. The church in Acts did not choose a token Greek to be placed on a committee or seek to balance a committee with diversity. Instead, they chose the minority group to solve the minority problem of marginalization of Greek women, thereby allowing a minority to exercise its godly gifts within its own community, from its own cultural perspective, to find solutions to its own problems. This is an excellent example of how a church looked past culture within the context of church leadership to empower minorities.

In conclusion, the names Jesus and “Jesus of Nazareth” have a restorative cultural connotation that should not be ignored. We can learn many things when we contemplate how restoration and culture meet, what that means for us as individuals, and what that means for us as a Church.

Simply approaching Scripture from a different perspective, one can glean new understanding. Liberation Theology is a tool for asking different questions of Scripture to address problems or concerns that affect a particular segment of our society. This short essay was simply a way of asking different questions about the name “Jesus of Nazareth” and the name Jesus. As a minority, this simple essay allowed me to gain a deeper appreciation that God can and does use individuals from outside the normative culture to elicit change and lead His people. We realize that Jesus of Nazareth was oppressed and marginalized simply because He was associated with those outside the acceptable normative culture of Jerusalem. Of course, there is more to Jesus’ oppression, but one of the reasons was His perceived place of origin, Nazareth. I have been asked by some to use my liberationist perspective in the context of the Book of Mormon to see whether one can glean a new or renewed understanding. This will take a little time, as I do not consider myself a Mormon theologian, but I believe that given some time, I can and will ask different questions from Scripture contained within the Book of Mormon. We’ll see where that takes us.

Over time, I have been very critical of Protestant missionaries in Latin America. They often go to Latin American nations with the purpose of sharing their Gospel and also imposing their culture on these nations. I find this approach very colonial and demeaning. I have spoken to many LDS missionaries working within the Hispanic community over the past several months. What pleases me is that while at the MTC, they learn a new language, but they also learn a new culture. The missionaries said they learn how to fit into Hispanic culture. This approach is encouraging because they are not trying to make Hispanic culture conform to theirs, but instead are conforming to Hispanic culture. This method shows great respect and appreciation for different cultures and indicates that the true Church of God is made up of multicultural children of God, i.e., we are all different -- just accept it. “Many people, many nations, and many languages” is a phrase used in different variations in the Book of Revelation to signify the Latter-day Church. The same phrase is used in different variations within the Book of Mormon. It should serve as a reminder that the Latter-day Church will be a multicultural Church, consisting of many people, many nations, and many languages. Thus, our congregations and leadership also should reflect that fact.

This short essay was adapted from a lecture I have given in the past. I also have used this speech as part of a Hispanic radio program I hosted called “Teologia sin Fronteras,” or “Theology Without Borders.” The premise of the essay is to bring attention to the fact that one can, in fact, use his or her own contextual identity as a starting point for theological reflection. In my case, I use my Hispanic heritage as a starting point for theological reflection. I use the circumstances that are relevant to my Hispanic community to ask questions that are relevant to our circumstances as a point of departure for theological reflection. I hope everyone enjoys reading Scripture through their own cultural lens. Remember that in the end, all Scripture is in harmony, and all Godly revelation will find its place within the context of God’s Word, which is interrelated and interwoven. One always should consider the totality of Scripture when reflecting on God’s Word.

#Jesus #Restoration #Commandment #LDS #SergioSmith #Liberationtheology #TeologiaMormon #LatinoMormonTheologian #HispanicMormonTheologian